Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
Dr. Rajesh Singh And Another – Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Opposite Parties
Application U/S 482 No. - 600 of 2020
Decided On : 20-09-2024
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1974 - Sections 190(1)(b), 169, 200, 202 - Cognizance of offence - The Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the final report of the police and summoned the applicants under various IPC sections, despite a thorough investigation indicating accidental death. The court emphasized that the Magistrate must provide substantial reasons for rejecting a final report and taking cognizance. (Paras 28, 30, 32)
(B) Investigation - The court noted that the investigation was detailed, involving scientific tests, and concluded that the applicants were not involved in the alleged homicide, but rather the deceased died due to an accident. (Paras 26, 28)
(C) Legal Principles - The court reiterated that a Magistrate can take cognizance of a case even after accepting a final report if sufficient grounds are established. (Paras 26, 27)
Facts of the case:
The applicants, a doctor couple, were accused of causing the death of a complainant's son at their hospital. The FIR alleged homicide, but postmortem revealed multiple injuries consistent with an accident. (Paras 2-4)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence indicated the deceased died due to a road accident, not homicide, and the applicants had no involvement. (Paras 28, 30)
Issues: The main issues were whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate's rejection of the final report was justified and whether the evidence supported the allegations against the applicants. (Paras 28, 30)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Chief Judicial Magistrate failed to provide adequate reasoning for summoning the applicants after rejecting the final report, which indicated no prima facie case against them. (Paras 28, 30)
Result: The impugned orders were quashed, and the applicants were exonerated. (Paras 30, 32)
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
1. Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Applicants, Sri Bhagwan Singh Yadav, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2/Complainant/informant and Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. Applicants are Doctor Couple. Applicant no.1 is a Surgeon, whereas applicant no.2 is a Gynecologist. They are practising at their hospital namely Singh Life Care Hospital Ltd, Rajepur, Disrict-Ghazipur.
3. Complainant (Anandi Singh Yadav) lodged an First Information Report on 19.4.2015 at 10.30 hours, under Sections 147, 302, 323, 395 and 504 I.P.C. alleging that an occurrence took place in the night of 18/19.4.2015 at said hospital wherein applicants along with unknown persons have allegedly caused death of his son. Contents of complaint mentioned in FIR is reproduced hereinafter:-
4. Post mortem of deceased was conduced on 19.4.2015 at about 4.30 P.M. whereupon 24 Ante Mortem injuries were found and it was opined that cause of death was ‘Coma and Haemorrhagic shock as a result of Ante-Mortem Injuries’. For reference Ante-Mortem Injuries’ are mentioned hereinafter:
“Antemortem Injuries:-
1. LACERATED WOUND 4 CM X 1 CM X BONE DEEP OVER RIGHT SIDE OF HEAD, 4 CM ABOVE RIGHT EAR OPENING, AFTER DISSECTION RIGHT FRONTAL & PARIETAL BONE ARE FRACTURED.
2. LACERATED WOUND 9 CM X 5 CM X BONE DEEP AROUND RIGHT EAR WITH AVULSION OF RIGHT EAR PINNA.
3. ABRADED CONTUSION 16 CM X 5 CM OVER RIGHT SIDE OF FACE, EXTANDING FROM FORE-HEAD TO FRONT OF RIGHT EAR.
4. ABRASION 5 CM X 3 CM OVER NECK, JUST BELOW ENJURY NO.-2.
5. LACERATED WOUND 5 CM X 6 CM X BONE DEEP AROUND LEFT EAR WITH AVULSION OF LEFT EAR PINNA.
6. ABRADED CONTUSION 7.5CM X 3 CM OVER JUST MEDIAL TO INJURY NO-5.
7. ABRADED CONTUSION 2 CM X 1 CM OVER RIGHT SIDE OF CHIN.
8. ABRADED CONTUSION 2.5 CM X 1 CM OVER LEFT SIDE OF CHIN.
9. ABRADED CONTUSION 9 CM X 4.6 CM OVER FRONT OF RIGHT SHOULDER AND ABRASION 2.4CM X 1 CM OVER BACK OF RIGHT SHOULDER.
10. ABRADED CONTUSION 3 CM X 1.5 CM AT UPPER END OF XIPHISTERNUM.
11. ABRADED CONTUSION 6 CM X 2.3 CM OVER TOP OF LEFT SHOULDER.
12. MULTIPLE ABRASIONS MARKS IN AREA OF 8 CM X 6 CM OVER DORSAL ASPECT OF LEFT PALM.
13. ABRASION 6 CM X 4.5 CM OVER POSTERIOR ASPECT OF LUMBER REGION. 11 CM BELOW LEFT LOWER END OF SCAPULA.
14. ABRASION 5 CM X 4.2 CM OVER POSTERIOR ASPECT OF RIGHT ELBOW JOINT.
15. ABRASION 19.5 CM X 9.3 CM OVER RIGHT SCAPULAR REGION.
16. ABRASION 8 CM X 4 CM OVER RIGHT SIDE OF BACK, 3 CM BELOW & ANTERIOR TO INJURY NO.-15.
17. ABRASION 17 CM X 6.2 CM OVER RIGHT LOWER BACK, 8 CM ABOVE & POSTERIOR TO RIGHT ANTERIOR SUPERIOR ILIAC SPINE.
18. ABRADED CONTUSION 8 CM X 5 CM OVER DORSAL ASPECT OF RIGHT PALM INCLUDING RIGHT INDEX FINGER.
19. MULTIPLE ABRADED CONTUSION IN AREA OF 7 CM X 5 CM OVER POSTERIOR ASPECT OF LEFT ELBOW JOINT INCLUDING UPPER END OF LEFT FORE-ARM.
20. ABRASION 4 CM X 3.4 CM OVER POSTERIOR ASPECT OF LEFT ELBOW JOINT.
21. ABRASION 2.6 CM X 1.5 CM JUST BELOW RIGHT PATELA.
22. LACERATED WOUND 1.5 CM X 1 CM X MUSCLE DEEP OVER LEFT LEG, 4 CM BELOW LEFT PATELA.
23. CRUSHED INJURY 23 CM X 6.5 CM OVER MEDIAL ASPECT OF LEFT FOOT, UNDERLYING BONE EXPOSED.
24. ABRASION 2 CM X 1 CM OVER DORSAL ASPECT OF RIGHT FOOT, 1 CM BELOW SECOND TOE.”
5. On basis of referred F.I.R., investigation was conducted. Investigating Officer recorded statement of the complainant (Anandi Singh Yadav) and alleged witnesses Basanti Devi (daughter of complainant) and Sandeep Yadav (nephew of complainant). Anandi Singh Yadav and Basanti Devi have recorded similar version as recorded in F.I.R. and claimed that they were eye witnesses to occurrence. Sandeep Yadav has also claimed to be an eye witness, but his version was different to other alleged eye witness (Anandi Singh Yadav and Basanti Devi) that there was a struggle between deceased and attendants of a patient who was being attended by Doctor and Hospital’s staff at the hospital at relevant time. Staff of Hospital intervened and forced deceased to go outside the ga
AI
The court emphasized that a Magistrate must provide substantial reasons for rejecting a final report and taking cognizance, especially when evidence indicates accidental death rather than homicide.
Defective investigations that neglect crucial evidence cannot justify discharge; courts must ensure thorough investigations in cases involving dowry-related deaths.
The judgment establishes the principle that a fair and just investigation is essential for a fair trial, and the defective investigation cannot be a ground for discharge. It emphasizes the obligation....
A negative final report does not bar further investigation and prosecution in cases of medical negligence requires substantial expert evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
